Sophistry, Thy Name Is Maureen Dowd

by
Thomas A. Droleskey

For those of you among the seven readers of this website who missed the "assignment" that was posted on the home page yesterday afternoon, it might be very useful to read Sinners Deal With Sinners before reading the rest of this new article.

Assignment done? Good. I'm glad that you were so diligent. Thanks for being as cooperative as you are, except, that is, when it comes to the support of this site (just another subtle hint, you understand).

The late philosopher Simone Weil, who converted to Catholicism before she died on August 24, 1943, at the age of thirty-four, compared the political discourse and commercial advertising with the era of Sophists, a band of relativists who constituted a majority of thought in Athens in the Fifth Century before the Nativity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Miss Weil's description of those early relativists, quoted by the late Dr. Russell Kirk in The Roots of American Order, is a perfection description of what passes for "thought" and "commentary" in our own era of relativism and positivism:

"It is as though we had returned to the age of Protagoras and the
Sophists, the age when the art of persuasion--whose modern equivalent is
advertising slogans, publicity, propaganda meetings, the press, the
cinema, and radio--took the place of thought and controlled the fate of
cities and accomplished coups d'etat. So the ninth book of Plato's
Republic looks like a description of contemporary events." (Simone Weil,
quoted in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.)

Relativists believe that there are no moral absolutes, that the morality of individual acts is determined by a variety of variable factors, including, although from limited to, the motivation of those involved and the particular set of circumstances that exist at a given time. In believing that there are few, if any, moral absolutes, however, relativists demonstrate themselves to be quintessential absolutists as they believe absolutely that almost nothing, if anything, can be absolutely immoral in and of its nature. Most matters of morality simply "depend" upon circumstances and the "consciences" of the individuals involved.

Yet it is, of course, that relativists are quite dogmatic in their propagandizing in behalf of their relativism, condemning, sometimes with caustic smarminess, anyone who dares to oppose their "received" beliefs. It is then that relativists become openly absolutist as they dismiss opponents with bitter invectives, condemning them by making advertence to one shopworn slogan ("judgmental," "intolerant," "bigoted," "racist," "homophobic," "patriarchal," "haters," "narrow-minded") after another in order to shame them into submission to the currently prevailing beliefs of the secular magisterium that is composed of self-appointed "popes" and "popessas" such as Maureen Dowd, a columnist for The New York Times.

Miss Dowd, who is old enough to have been taught better, having been born on January 14, 1982, recently meted out forty lashes to the hapless "happy" conciliar archbishop of the Archdiocese of New York, Timothy Dolan, for opposing the bill currently under consideration by the New York State Senate that seeks to bestow the "right to marry" upon those of the same gender who are engaged in perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. In the process of meting out those forty lashes on the man who has openly blasphemed God saying that He could be referred to by whatever name people want to use, Miss Dowd (sorry, I don't recognize the feminist "Ms." prefix, thank you very much) attempted to discredit Timothy Dolan by citing the conciliar church's protection of perverted clergymen. So much sophistry, so little time.

Although you can read Miss Dowd's article, The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera, for yourselves as it appears on the website of The New York Times, permit me to do you the favor of pasting it here so that it can be dispatched as the piece of sophistry that it is without taking up too terribly much of your time:

With his cigars, blogs, Jameson’s and Irish affability, New York
Archbishop Timothy Dolan prides himself on his gumption.

Certainly his effort to kill the gay marriage bill, just one vote away from passing in Albany, shows a lot of gall.

The archbishop has been ferocious in fighting against marriage between
same-sex couples, painting it as a perversity against nature.

If only his church had been as ferocious in fighting against the true
perversity against nature: the unending horror of pedophile priests and
the children who trusted them.

In the second-generation round of the Church vs. Cuomo, Archbishop Dolan
is pitted against Andrew Cuomo, the Catholic governor who is fiercely
pushing for New York to become the sixth and most populous state to
approve gay marriage.

Governor Cuomo was already on the wrong side of the church for his
support of abortion rights, his divorce and his living in “sin” with the
Food Network star Sandra Lee. He was accused by the Vatican adviser
Edward Peters of “public concubinage,” as it’s known in canon law, and
Peters recommended that Cuomo be denied communion until he resolved “the
scandal” by ceasing this “cohabiting.”

And therein lies the casuistry. On one hand, as Peters told The Times
about Cuomo and Lee, “men and women are not supposed to live together
without benefit of matrimony.” But then the church denies the benefit of
marriage to same-sex couples living together.

Dolan insists that marriage between a man and a woman is “hard-wired” by
God and nature. But the church refuses to acknowledge that
homosexuality may be hard-wired by God and nature as well, and is not a
lifestyle choice.

Dolan and other church leaders are worried about the exodus of young
Catholics who no longer relate to the intolerances of church teaching.
He dryly told The Times last year that when he sees long lines of young
people on Fifth Avenue waiting to get into a house of worship, it’s at
Abercrombie & Fitch, not St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it
became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a
sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying.

In yet another attempt at rationalization, the nation’s Catholic bishops
— a group Dolan is now in charge of — put out a ridiculous
five-year-study last month going with the “blame Woodstock” explanation
for the sex-abuse scandal. The report suggested that the problem was
caused by permissive secular society rather than cloistered church
culture, because priests were trained in the turbulent free-love era. It
concluded, absurdly, that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor
homosexuality were causes.

In another resistance to reform, the bishops voted on Thursday to keep
their policies on sexual abuse by the clergy largely the same, with only
small revisions, ignoring victims’ advocates who were hoping for
meaningful changes.

At their meeting in Bellevue, Wash., one retired archbishop from
Anchorage actually proposed an amendment to get rid of the “zero
tolerance” provision on abuse so some guilty priests could return to
parishes. That failed, at least.

If God and nature are so clear about what marriage is, why do the
well-connected have an easier time getting the church to sunder their
marriages with annulments? (Yes, we’re talking about you, Newt
Gingrich.)

In his blog, “The Gospel in the Digital Age,” Dolan invokes not just God
but Orwell, denouncing the “perilous presumption of the state” in
reinventing the definition of marriage, which, he says, “has served as
the very cornerstone of civilization and culture from the start.”

The Starchbishop noted with asperity that “Last time I consulted an
atlas, it is clear we are living in New York, in the United States of
America — not in China or North Korea,” where “communiqués from the
government can dictate the size of families, who lives and who dies, and
what the very definition of ‘family’ and ‘marriage’ means.”

Yeah. Not like the Vatican.

In the same blog, Dolan snidely dismissed the notion that gay marriage
is a civil right. “We acknowledge that not every desire, urge, want, or
chic cause is automatically a ‘right,’ ” he wrote.

“And, what about other rights, like that of a child to be raised in a family with a mom and a dad?”

And how about the right of a child not to be molested by the parish priest?

Dolan acts like getting married (when done by gays) is a self-indulgent
act of hedonism when it’s really a leap of faith and a promise of
fidelity.

Worn out by the rampant sexting of Anthony Weiner and the relentless
blogging of Archbishop Dolan, I’m wondering if our institutions need to
rejigger: Maybe pols should be celibate and priests should be married. (Maureen Dowd, The Archbishop vs. the Governor: Gay Sera, Sera.)

So much sophistry. So little time. Oh, I wrote that already. Well, it still fits the occasion. So much sophistry. So little time.

Conflating Two Unrelated Issues for the Sake of Emotionally Charged Rhetoric

Miss Dowd, who is twenty-three months younger than "Archbishop" Dolan and is my own junior by fifty-two days, confuses two unrelated issues by seeking to discredit the "happy" non-archbishop's stance against the "legalization" of "marriage" between persons of the same gender by making reference to the counterfeit church of conciliarism's cover-up of the crimes committed by conciliar clergymen against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The two have nothing to do with each other, although I will concede very readily that the protection afforded perverted clergymen by conciliar officials does make it more easy for Sophists such as Miss Dowd to conflate the two for the sake of delivering what they think are powerful rhetorical punches.

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and
the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every
creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.[28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply,
and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea,
and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the
earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the
earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to
be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may
have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30.)

God created His rational creatures, human beings, in His own image and likeness in that they have rational, immortal souls to know, love and serve Him in this life so as to be happy with Him for all eternity forever in Heaven. God has given men and women the awesome power to continue the species ("Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it") so that He can have adorers here on earth and then for all eternity in Heaven. The primary end of this procreative power given to men by God in the fertile years is to beget children and to educate them in the truths of the Catholic Faith. Any other use, whether natural or unnatural, of that procreative power is sinful.

Pope Pius XI explained very clearly in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, that a man and woman joined together in the Sacrament of Matrimony as husband and wife must assist each other in the growth of their immortal souls, something that is impossible for those engaged in sinful acts, whether natural or unnatural, to realize:

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly
called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely,
more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more
excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the
duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage.
For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an
especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as
Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he
said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that
Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the
sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The
love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing
lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in
the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since
love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home
demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its
primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming
and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their
partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and
above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor,
on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." For all men
of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can
and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed
before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive
at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many
saints.

This mutual molding of husband and wife, this
determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as
the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose
of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted
sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the
child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual
interchange and sharing thereof. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Indeed, Pope Pius XI specifically condemned all other "unions" wherein human beings not only do not help to perfect each other but winds up leading them more and more into the grip of sin from which they may never escape:

To begin at the very source of these evils, their
basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to
be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord
to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some
confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of
matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of
producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement
impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or,
as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since,
unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the
dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and
rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At
the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea
matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the
mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously
all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is
already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin
and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The
evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its
advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and
customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin
solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and
must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and
the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence
it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of
wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to
suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the
same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go
so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the
present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of
matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and
"companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and
its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without
offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a
matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and
insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least,
excused by their general acceptance among the people. They
do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of
the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful
abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured
nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

This, of course, applies, just as much to those who sin unnaturally against the Sixth Commandment as it does to those who sin naturally against them, such as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his concubine, Sandra Lee (see Memo To Howard Hubbard: Public Scandal Is Never A Private Matter). No one "loves": another if he does anything that interferes with the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. It is impossible, therefore, for anyone sinning against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to truly love the person with whom he is sinning as he is leading that person into the grip of the devil.

Contrary to the assertion made by Miss Dowd in her "commentary," inclinations to commit perverse sins against nature are not "hard-wired" into human beings. Inclinations to permit perverse sins against nature are acquired, which is why those who commit them must seek to proselytize in their behalf. Such people need to recruit new members for their cause and to use sophistry of the sort employed by Miss Dowd to garner silent acquiescence and empathy, if not actual approval, from those who do not behave as they do.

The inherent immorality of sins against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance can never be justified in any way whatsoever. No, not by an appeal to slogans such as "civil rights" or "love" or "equality," and not by attempting to shoot a very imprecise messenger because of the way his false church has protected and promoted abusive clergymen who have committed crimes against God and man.

Missing in Action in Maureen Dowd's Column: Reality

The real tragedy in Miss Dowd's screed against Timothy Dolan is that she is incapable of recognizing that her conciliar "archbishop" of New York does not speak in the clear, precise terms used by prelates of the Catholic Church, believing the "happy" man to be a Catholic when, of course, he is an apostate who tows the line on the conciliar liturgical and dogmatic agendas completely without a trace of dissent. "Archbishop" Dolan shoots from his mouth without much forethought or reflection, leading him to speak in imprecise terms even when he does happen to be correct about a moral issue. A man who can be so cavalier about how God is to be addressed will never be able to speak precisely on any subject pertaining to Faith and Morals.

Thus missing from Maureen Dowd's acerbic column that attempted to take Timothy Dolan to the feminist woodshed is any grasp of the reality that Timothy Dolan is an apostate, a man who says that he opposes the surgical assassination of children and of "marriage" by those of the same gender while having said two years ago upon his arrival in New York that he had long "admired the work" of the Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai Brith, heedless, it appears, of the fact that this "work" has included active support for the chemical and surgical killing of innocent preborn children in their mothers' wombs and whole-hearted support for the "right" of those engaged in perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to "marry." (See Making Everyone Happy Except God and If Only Catholics Spoke This Way.) There is a mass of confusion rolling around inside of "Archbishop" Timothy Dolan, something that is the all-too-logical and quite inevitable result that occurs when one adheres to the falsehoods of a false religion and commits sacrilege after sacrilege each time that he stages the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service and engaged in the condemned practice called "inter-religious prayer services."

Sure, Timothy Dolan, who appears to be "talking tough" about the "marriage" bill now pending in the New York State Senate, has a tin ear about the systematic cover-up of abusive clergymen, many of whom were reassigned, if not promoted, after their participation in crimes against children and others had been fully documented.

Sure, Timothy Dolan permitted the notorious little pest named Rembert G. Weakland, his immediate predecessor as the conciliar "archbishop" of Milwaukee, to make public appearances after he had been disgraced so thoroughly in 2002 that he was forced into submitting his resignation (see Weak In Mind, Weak In Faith and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?).

Sure, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II promoted the egregious enabler of one abusive clergyman after another, Bernard "Cardinal" Law, and refused to act on the reports that he received about known instances of clerical abuse that were brought to his direct personal attention.

None of this has anything to do with whether "marriage" between persons of the same gender is in according with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It is not, and no amount of sophism can make the sin of Sodom justifiable because some of those who condemned it have failed in their responsibilities to protect the souls and bodies of children and others. One has nothing to do with the other.

The failure to protect human beings from clerical predators is, at least to a large extent, the result of bad doctrine and bad pastoral praxis that have nothing to do with the Catholic Faith at all, admitting full well that the culture of secrecy that enabled such abuse existed before the rise of conciliarism and its false doctrines and false pastoral praxis. Even this admission, however, takes nothing away from the reality that is totally absent from Miss Dowd's recent column, namely, that far from being "hostile" to the "gay agenda," many "bishops" and religious communities in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have recruited men with perverse "orientations," sanctioning liturgies and "paraliturgies" to support such "orientations" under the slogan of "diversity" and "tolerance," going so far as to base human self-identity on the basis of an "orientation" to commit sins against nature. And it is not, as a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston noted recently, that such "orientation" is opposed to "humanity" that to acknowledge its legitimacy is wrong; it is because sin, which is opposed to God and thus our own temporal and eternal welfare, makes it so, not our "humanity."

The structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are rife with the lavender crowd and their influence upon art, music, liturgy and doctrine. You doubt my word? Well, just take a look at Mrs. Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy (some of which has been released as an e-book available from New Engel Publishing).
Mrs. Engel's book, whose graphic content must be shielded from the young and is not a "must read" for others, is filled with true facts and statistics, replete
with documentation, making it a valuable resource for those who want to understand the depths of the influence possessed by the lavender collective in the conciliar church. It is irrefutable. Indeed, as noted several weeks ago on this site, out of the four hundred
eighty-one end notes in the new John Jay College of Criminal Justice
study on the causes of clerical misconduct, however, there is not one single
reference to Mrs. Engel's book. Not one. (See Peeking into the Old Conciliar Fowler's Lair, part one and Peeking into the Old Conciliar Fowler's Lair, part two). The social scientists who produced that tripe are as detached from reality as Maureen Dowd is when finding "hostility" to the "gay agenda" in the conciliar church, which has been quite receptive to much of it in the past five decades.

The lavender-friendly environment found in the conciliar structures is such that the mere whiff of criticism of being "judgment" or "lacking compassion" sends conciliar officials to the tall grass as they retreat more decisively than Captain Wilton Parmenter of F Troop. Here is a case in point:

BOSTON, June 20, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com)
– A ‘gay-friendly’ parish in Boston is celebrating a victory after
leaders in the parish said the archdiocese of Boston had given
permission to reschedule a Mass intended to celebrate Boston’s gay pride
month for a less controversial date.

The Mass, with the theme “All Are Welcome,” has been rescheduled for
July 10 after the archbishop’s office rejected an earlier date that
diocesan officials said implied too much cooperation with the city’s gay
pride celebrations.

However, it was not only the date that gave the impression of support
for gay pride. The original statement in the church bulletin announcing
the mass had explicitly invited “all friends and supporters of the LGBT
community to a Mass in celebration of Boston’s Pride Month.”’

Members of the ministry were triumphant at Sunday’s prayer service,
which took place outside the building of St. Cecilia’s Catholic Church
in place of the canceled Mass. “See you all on July 10!’’ Rainbow
Ministry president John Kelly yelled to the applauding crowd of about
250, according to a Boston Globe report.

On its website, the Rainbow Ministry states that it aims “to reaffirm
our Catholic faith community as one which is open to and supportive of
gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons in the loving Spirit of Christ.”

Last week, Boston archdiocese spokesman Terrence Donilon announced
that the Mass planned for June 19 would be cancelled, but told the Globe
that Boston Cardinal Seán O’Malley would not oppose the prayer service
that was held in its stead.

“This should not be about conflict. The teachings of the Catholic
Church are set in stone, but that doesn’t stop us from loving people
from different walks of life,” he said.

O’Malley reacted to the negative backlash over the Mass cancellation on his blog Friday, stating, “[T]he Church exists to announce the Gospel and invite
people to conversion, to greater discipline in their lives as they seek
to follow Christ’s teachings, which apply to everyone, regardless of
their sexual orientation.”

The cardinal reposted an earlier letter rejecting same-sex “marriage”
and recalling, “The Church has often warned against defining people by
their sexual orientation in a way that diminishes their humanity.”

Despite such attempts to soothe ruffled feathers, emotions continued
to run high in the wake of the archdiocese’s initial move to quash the
mass. Following the cancellation Rev. John Unni, the pastor of St.
Cecilia’s, gave an impassioned sermon supporting inclusion of parishioners “gay or
straight, rich or poor, young or old, black or white.” Other local gay
activists joined a chorus of condemnation, including Gene Robinson, the
Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop.

Reports from the prayer service indicated that supporters of the
Rainbow Ministry are still dissatisfied with the outcome, and the way
the controversy was handled.

One member of the crowd, 22-year-old Shawn Fiedler, said in the
Globe’s article, “It saddens me that the church follows bloggers and not
the Holy Spirit. We’re not going to move forward that way.’’ The vice
chairman of the parish council said parish leaders hope to meet with
archdiocese officials to discuss “a very hurtful few weeks.”

Local conservative Catholics met news of the Rainbow Ministry’s
prayer service with dismay. C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of
Massachusetts called the service a “tragedy” that revealed “a massive
failure of formation and catechesis in Saint Cecilia’s Parish.”

“The archdiocese is neglecting the spiritual welfare of the people of
St. Cecilia’s by refusing to give them the full truth of Catholic
teaching,” Doyle told LifeSiteNews.com Monday afternoon. “Clearly this
Mass, if it is allowed to go forward, will be both a scandal and a
sacrilege.” (Boston archdiocese allows rescheduled 'gay pride' Novus Ordo service.)

Mr. C. J. Doyle is certainly well-meaning. He must, however, confront the reality that it was never necessary prior to the "Second" Vatican Council for a layman to serve as a self-appointed "watchdog" over the operation of a Catholic archdiocese or diocese. The Catholic Church cannot turn such a blind eye to the public promotion of sin, no less sanction what purports to be an offering Holy Mass to "celebrate" perversity. This is impossible, again admitting that bishops in the past sometimes served as enablers of morally corrupt potentates and/or were morally corrupt themselves. This is far, far different, however, than publicly promoting sin and celebrating it in a liturgical service. Sinners there will always be. Behold a terrible sinner who writes this article! It is one thing to sin and to be sorry as one seeks out the forgiveness of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to celebrate it publicly. This is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ came to convert sinners, not to reaffirm them in their sins. This is basic Catholicism.

Indeed, the reality that Miss Dowd either ignores or is ignorant of is that there are many such "gay friendly" parishes in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. To name only a few that come to mind at a late, late hour, there are such examples as the infamous Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro District of the City of San Francisco, itself headed by a Ratzinger/Benedict appointee, George Niederauer, who praised a propaganda film promoting perversity in the name of "love," Brokeback Mountain, which he took the time to watch in a movie theater, it should be noted, and Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Saint Francis Xavier Church in the Greenwich Village section of the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, and Saint Brigid Church (Westbury, New York) and Saints Cyril and Methodius Church (Deer Park) in my own former home Diocese of Rockville Centre, New York. There are many others in the United States of America and around the world.

No, of course, Miss Maureen Dowd needed to have a straw man to knock down with her sophisms. Why bother to pay attention to reality as she serves as propagandist in support of the "rights" of those engaged in actions that are deleterious to their bodies and to their souls and thus to the whole of social order? And which conciliar official is going to discipline her for supporting the chemical and surgical assassination of children and special "rights" to those engaged in perverse acts with her powerful perch on the "op-ed" page of The New York Times?

As I noted a few days ago, that which is false, founded in one condemned proposition after another, will show forth its sterility over the course of time as it tolerates all manner of errors on a practical level that, at least theoretically, are condemned "officially" but without, at least for the most part, any disciplinary actions imposed upon those who hold and promote those errors publicly. It is pretty difficult for the lords of conciliarism to have a consistent policy of discipline with those who defect from articles contained in the Deposit of Faith and who promote grave moral evils when each of them, without exception, defies the ancient anathemas of the Catholic Church concerning the nature of dogmatic truth, false ecumenism and "inter-religious prayer services" and as they support openly such things as separation of Church and State and religious liberty.

We have much reparation to make to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our sins and for those of the whole world. Much reparation to make, especially in this month of June and as we approach the feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus on Friday, July 1, 2011.

With Our Lady as our sure guide and intercessor, may we indeed be ever earnest about making reparation for our own many sins, each of has contributed to the worsening of the state of the Church Militant here on earth and of the world-at-large. Once again, make no mistake about it: our own sins and our ingratitude and our lukewarmness have exacerbated, that is, worsened, the state of the Church Militant on earth. We cannot be content to wallow in spiritual mediocrity. We must accept whatever penances and humiliations that God chooses to send us so that we can give them back to His Most Sacred Heart through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother as her consecrated slaves, especially by means of praying as many Rosaries as our states-in-life permit.

Our Lady stands by the tomb of her Divine Son, Who has been buried mystically by the conciliarists' contempt for the truths that He has revealed exclusively through His Catholic Church and have been taught infallibly by her without any hint or shadow of change from Pentecost Sunday. We must keep her company at that tomb in our prayers, being ever willing to take on more penances and to renounce our own comfort and convenience and all attachment to human respect in order to help to usher in the day when the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will make it possible for the enemies of her Divine Son in the modern world, including Miss Maureen Dowd and so many others like her and in the grips of Modernism, such as Ratzinger/Benedict and his band of "bishops" such as Timothy Dolan, to vanquished by their conversion to the truths of the true Faith, thus permitting the restoration of all things in Christ the King as we honor her as our Immaculate Queen.

Words of Our Lady to the Venerable Mary of Agreda as recorded in The Mystical City of God

INSTRUCTION WHICH THE GREAT QUEEN OF THE ANGELS,
MOST HOLY MARY, GAVE ME.

427. My daughter, when in the course of this history
I so often call thy attention to the lamentable state of
the world and to that of the holy Church in which thou
livest, and when I so often express my maternal solicitude that thou imitate me, remember, my dearest, that I
have great reasons for obliging thee to lament with me
and for wishing thee to weep over that which I bewailed
in my mortal life; and which would afflict me in my present state, if in it I were capable of sorrow. I assure
thee, soul, thou hast reached times, in which thou
oughtest to shed tears of blood because of the calamities
coming over the children of Adam. Since thou canst
not at one and the same time attain a full knowledge
of them all, I remind thee of what from my place in
heaven I see going on in the whole world among the believers of the holy faith. Turn then thy eyes upon those
multitudes and behold the greater part of the children
of Adam in the darkness and errors of unbelief, rushing
without hope of salvation to eternal perdition. Behold
also the children of the faith and of the Church, how
heedless and forgetful of this damage they continue to
be, so that there are none who seem to deplore it. For in
contempt of their own salvation, they care not about
that of others and, their faith being dead and their love
extinct, they sorrow not for the loss of souls created by
God and redeemed by the blood of the incarnate Word.

428. All are the children of the eternal Father who is
in heaven (Matth 23, 9) and all are obliged to have a
care of their brethren according to each one's condition.
This obligation rests more especially upon the children of
the Church, who can live up to it by their prayers and
supplications. But this duty lies still more directly upon
those who have influence, upon those who are nourished
by the Christian faith, and who enjoy more of the benefits of the liberal hand of the Almighty. Those who
through the law of Christ are favored with temporal
advantages and who make use of them for the service
and the delights of the flesh, are they who, as the powerful, are to be more powerfully tormented (Matth 23, 9).
If the pastors and the chiefs of the house of the Lord
seek only a life of ease, without caring to engage in true
earnest labor, they will make themselves accountable for
the ruin of the flock of Christ and for the carnage brought
on by the infernal wolves. O my daughter, into what a
lamentable state has the Christian people been cast by the powerful, by the pastors, and by the wicked ministers,
whom God has given them in his secret judgments ! O
what confusion and chastisements await them! Before
the tribunal of the just Judge they will have no excuse;
since the Catholic truth undeceives them, their conscience
loudly protests, while they wilfully remain deaf to all
warnings.

429. The cause of God remains neglected and without
a champion; his possessions, which are the souls, are left
without increase; all as it were look but to their own
interest and preservation, each one according to his own
diabolical cunning and according to his state of life.
Truth is obscured, flattery raises its voice, avarice is unbridled, the blood of Christ is trodden under foot, the
fruits of the Redemption are held in contempt; no one
wishes to risk his own comfort or interest in order to
save what has cost the Savior his blood and life. Even
the friends of God are influenced by the evils; for they do
not make use of their charity and its holy liberty as they
ought; and most of them allow themselves to be overcome by their cowardice and content themselves with
working for themselves alone, forsaking the common
cause of the souls of others. Hence thou mayest understand, my daughter, that now, after the evangelical
Church has been established by my divine Son and fertilized by his own blood, those unhappy times have come,
of which the Lord himself complains through his holy
Prophets, saying : what the palmerworm hath left the
locust has eaten, and what the locust left the bruchus
consumed, and the residue is destroyed by the mildew;
(Joel 1, 4) and in order to gather some fruits from his
vineyard, the Lord goes about like the gleaner after the
vintage, who seeks some remaining grape, or some olive,
which is not dried up, or carried away by the demons
(Is. 24, 13).

430. Tell me now, my daughter, how is it possible, if
thou still hast a true love for my divine Son and for me,
that thou find consolation or rest in thy heart at the sight
of the loss of souls, which He redeemed by his blood and
I have sought with blood-mingled tears? Even today,
if I could shed them, I would begin to do so with new
weeping and compassion; and since it is not possible for
me now to weep over the dangers threatening the Church,
I wish that thou do it and that thou spurn consolation in
a misfortune so calamitous and so worthy of lament.
Weep bitterly then, and lose not the merit of such a
sorrow; and let it be so deep, that thou findst no relief
except in affliction for the sake of the Lord whom thou
lovest Think of what I did, in order to stave off the damnation of Herod and to prevent it for those who wish
to avail themselves of my intercession. In the beatific
vision I pray without ceasing for the salvation of my
clients. Let not the labors and tribulations sent to thee
by my divine Son intimidate thee from helping they brethren and acquiring them for the possession of Christ
Amidst the injuries done to Him by the children of
Adam, do thou labor to recompense them in some measure by the purity of thy soul, which I desire shall be
rather that of an angel than of an earthborn woman.
Fight the battles of the Lord against his enemies and in
his name and mine, crush their head, reign over their
pride and cast them into hell. Do thou also counsel the
ministers of Christ with whom thou conversest, to use
their power in doing the same, to defend the souls in
lively faith and, in them, the honor and glory of the
Lord; for thus shall they repress and vanquish them
with divine power.
(The Venerable Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God: Book IV: The Coronation, pp. 282-285.)